What have you done for me lately?

[lookout123]

the theory is that someone who serves even one enlistment is entitled to a variety of life long benefits. during the drawdown and through the late '90's it began to make sense that if we can only have X number of troops rather than 2X then we better make them count. they need to be warriors or direct support for a trigger puller. accountants, HR, kitchen help, postal workers, communications, etc. don't have to be warrior trained in most cases - make 'em civvies. they get a larger annual pay package, but fewer benefits. as an added bonus, you have greater continuity on an installation because your civvies aren't PCSing every 2/3 years.

[BrianR]

one enlistment does NOT qualify one for lifelong benefits. Even the GI bill expires after ten years. Everything else stops when you turn in your green card. Unless you are injured and receive disability. Other than that, one must retire after twenty years to get lifetime benefits. And those suck, they're not what one gets on active duty. They mostly consist of commissary privileges and MWR access.

I know of which I speak.

[lookout123]

how about the VA hospital? national cemetary? VA loans? there are benefits, no matter how small they seem when multiplied by the number of folks eligible it adds up to a very large number.

Originally Posted by wolf

I don't think the migras that they have peeling the potatoes get insurance benefits.

Believe it or not, the potato peelers in the First Gulf War, anyhow, were Arabs. My friend who served in the first wave of the tank assault there said that one of his duties was to patrol the kitchen with his gun by his side while meals were cooked for his company. You never know what Abdul might take it into his mind to slip into the mashed potatoes, right?

Seems like we were better off in the good old days when KP meant peeling the potatoes yourself, not standing with a loaded gun, watching someone else do it.

[lookout123]

that is thetruth. when i was in KSA and a few other spots we had pakistani and yemenese contractors for all the mess halls. the entire base went down with food poisoning because of their less than stellar understanding of bacteria. i refused to eat in the chow hall shortly after arriving in country, so by eating fresh baked bread from a local bakery i never got sick.

[BigV]

This has been a very interesting thread, lookout123. Thanks for starting it. There have been a couple of landmarks for me in it. I got a nice compliment from Pie. Thank you very much. I look forward to your replies. I saw posts from Happy Monkey, footfootfoot and mrnoodle with which I agree (at least the second half), to my surprise. That was very well put, both articulate and insightful. I even got sassed by xoxoxoBruce. Hehehe, "brown shirts", I get it. Cute. You should read your own sig.

I read posts that stimulated more questions, about my own motivations and those of my government. Regarding these last two.

richlevy, I was unclear about your seeming exclusion of the armed forces in your statement.

Originally Posted by richlevy

I appreciate the good work of the Scouts. I was a Cub Scout a long time ago. However, as good citizens, the Scouting organization should be the first to understand the need to uphold principals, and one principal of this nation is that individuals should not be forced to have their taxes go to support organizations which actively discriminate against them (except for the armed forces). This includes the use of public resources.

What do you mean, that the armed forces may legitimately actively discriminate? If so, how and why? If not, please help me understand your remarks.

As to the difference between tolerance and being selective versus segregation, that's a very difficult question. In my heart, I think I'm being tolerant and selective when I'm on the inside, and being segregated against when I'm on the outside. That's human nature, I reckon. When is it acceptable and unacceptable? I think more details are needed to make an informed decision. I don't think any scenario beyond the comically simple could be decided with strict rules.

As to the military policy of having soldiers just for the shooting parts, and not for the support parts, I see the motivations for such a strategy. And here at home I think the good largely outweighs the bad. I think in the field, that policy shows it's weaknesses. I am not a policy expert in military matters, or in accounting. But I do get the sense that in dangerous environments, like theaters of battle, that saving money at the expense of defense/offense in depth has proven to have shortcomings. I imagine the Maginot Line--very strong against a frontal attack, but once flanked, no strength behind it. I don't mean this in a tactical sense, but that in the field, I can imagine that it would be a good idea to expect the cooks and the clerks and the mechanics and the medics to be able to fight, if needed.

[lookout123]

A) medics can't fight without sacrificing the (purely imagined) protection of the Geneva Convention.

B) the military is allowed age descrimination and sexual discrimination for, i feel, fairly obvious reasons.

C) A large flaw in the "let's hire civilian contractors" push is what we are now seeing and hearing in the media. we have a sufficient number of trigger pullers to take the fight to the enemy, it is the soft troop strength that we are having problems with.

Example: If you have 1,000 trained GI's in skill set "A" and you have global conflicts that require that 100 of them be deployed at all times - you can rotate indefinitely without much problem. at a 6 month deployment you can go 4-5 years without redeploying the same individuals. If you replace 800 of those trained GI's with civilians who are nondeployable then you have to rotate your remaining 200 troops one after another. that burns them out and their are other problems that pop up with the situation.

oversimplified, yes - but an accurate representation of what has happened inthe US military since 1990.

[BrianR]

Originally Posted by lookout123

how about the VA hospital? national cemetary? VA loans? there are benefits, no matter how small they seem when multiplied by the number of folks eligible it adds up to a very large number.

Bah. Just TRY getting treatment at a VA hospital. I did. I am entitled to those lifetime benefits at a VA hospital. It took me eight months just to get an appt to SEE a doctor. Tests would have taken longer had I not kept meticulous records ten years ago. One can die of old age before being treated there. If you don't have a blue ID card, forget it. And they'll tell you so right at the Admissions desk too.

VA loans. Okay, I give you this one. ANY veteran can borrow money, which still must be paid back with interest, albeit lower interest than the general pubic pays to a bank or mortgage company. Nothing is guaranteed however. You still have to qualify and repay. And there are restrictions on the size of the loan too. No multi-million dollar mansions...I'll have to look up the size limit for you. It's something like $235,000 maximum.

Brian

[lookout123]

Brian I know that benefits aren't the greatest but they are there. depending on the area, it may be hard to get what is rightfully yours, but that is the red tape around the benefit. i've had dealings with the VA hospitals in chicago and also phoenix. it isn't the greatest experience, but it is there. i worked in a gov't position while in college serving vets (i am one as well) our entire job was to help ANY veteran who walked in A) find a job - some menial, some management B) skill retraining, C) coordinate education benefits, D) assist in health benefits. it was all absolutely cost free for the vet. it isn't exciting and no one was doing cartwheels at the glory of the benefits, but they are benefits, nonetheless. each service does cost something. multiply the services rendered by literally thousands upon thousands of people and you come up to a fairly large number.

now contrast that to a paycheck that you give a contractor. when the job stops, the benefits stop.

and the VA loan obviously has to be paid back. the lending guidelines are more forgiving for the vet though.

[Pie]

Okay, I’m back from Te-has. Everything is bigger in Texas; even the cockroaches. :shudder:

Originally Posted by BigV

While that sounds reasonable, you know in your heart that it is not practical when carried too far. Realistically speaking, the larger an organization is, the more likely there will be a disconnect between the actions of an individual and the actions of the organization.

One needs to look at the purpose and scope of an organization. If I belong to the American Automobile Association, I don’t expect them to have a view on Social Security, or gay rights. If belong to AARP, they might legitimately have an organization-wide view on the former, but not the latter. If I were, say, a retired person, and had a view that was divergent from my parent organization, I would have to sit down and assess the level of divergence, and the importance of that divergence. If my views were only slightly askew, or I didn’t think they were that important (to me or to society), I might let it slide.
Otherwise, I have two options, as I enumerate previously. Publicly voice your disapproval, or leave the organization.

I believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions. But as soon as the organization expands from one to two and beyond, my responsibility for the actions of other individuals in the organization diminishes somewhat.

Of course individuals are responsible for their own actions! That’s why they are responsible for ALL their choices, including their choices of association. I can’t hang out with racists, not criticize their views, and then say, “Hey, it’s cool – I’m not a racist myself!” I’m not saying one is responsible for all the views of everyone in the organization – that would be impossible. But you are responsible for auditing the group-wide charter, platform or dogma. (Yes, this does apply to religions, too.)

If I fundamentally disagree with the tenets of an organization, then how can I really belong? Does my possession of a membership card indicate belonging? What about my name on a roster? What if the organization changes or I change, am I still part the organization?

That’s the heart of my argument! If you “fundamentally disagree,” you can’t belong. If their views change, I need to re-evaluate. If my views change, I also need to re-evaluate.

Because an idea may be true or beautiful, but by itself, it is inert. Statements reveal more about ideas, but statements can be lies. Actions are the least ambiguous of the three and therefore the firmest foundation upon which to base my decisions.

True. Actions are all that count. Stripping an Eagle Scout of his rank and association for being an atheist, or gay? That’s a pretty lousy action. Saying you’ll do it again, and it’s the “right thing to do”? That’s an egregious statement. Believing that homosexuality is incompatible with being a “moral” person? Repulsive idea. Just like that gang of racists, I can’t hang out with these folks.

I have another question. Do you imply that one may either exit an organization *OR* voice dissent? What if I wish to change an organization? Must I leave? What if the changes I seek are best pursued from within the organization? What if it's an organization from which I cannot easily leave? My family? My gender? My history?

It was phrased as an OR choice in the text to which I was referring. Doing your damnedest to change an organization from the interior is a most respectable way of dealing with such a dichotomy. That’s how I deal with being a citizen of the United States of America. I’ll voice my opposition to what’s currently going on as loudly and as often as I can. My other choice is to exit; I’ll do that only when I’ve exhausted all venues to affect change from my current position.
Of your three examples, I would class two as red herrings – gender and history are facts, not mutable opinions. The first is legitimate. Yes, if my brother is a fascist, and I can’t argue him out of it, I would have to think about whether or not to continue the relationship. (I am currently in a somewhat similar position, though not with my brother.)
(Or perhaps you can't leave the relationship. You can certainly cross them of the list of people you like and admire!)

It is by association with others that makes an organization. And what I think and say and do today reflects on all the organizations of which I am a member. But I am responsible for those thoughts, words and actions, not my fellow members.

But organizations do engage in actions. The various political parties engage in actions. The NRA, NAACP, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Catholic Church, the AAA – all engage in societal and legal actions as part of their charter. I’m not asking for an investigation of everyone who has ever been a member – I’m asking for an investigation of the organization itself. Do they represent your beliefs? Do they go against your beliefs?

Pie, by "Loyalty", do you mean placing greater emphasis on status quo than on principles? What if I agree with most of what an organization stands for, but not a small part? What if I am neutral about some ideas?

Then voice your opinion about the points you disagree on! Tell them you are a long-standing member that loves the Society for the Preservation of Domestic Aardvarks, but you don’t like their treatment of Spiny Echidnae as third-class citizens. Make your mark! Write to your Senator. Show up for the rally.
I was trying to illustrate the difference between blind loyalty and true loyalty. The former says "My group, right or wrong!" The latter says "We've got some issues here, folks. Doesn't anyone else see this?" Love it enough to want to change it for the better.

Mutliple the detailed decision making process outlined above by the manifold instances for which it would occur in a large organization, like The Boy Scouts of America, in just one day. Or over a career. It is necessary, not complacent, to remain engaged, critical, and open to ensure that the arc of an organization matches the trajectory of one's ethos. It is my individual responsibility to associate with and respresent the many organizations I am a part of. As long as I am paying attention, I'll do that well, and there'll be a fair match. But I believe perfect fidelity is as unimportant as it is impossible. I'd rather we all be paying attention in the present, and see what happens.

I think we really are on the same page, BigV. My only comment is that I have certain lines I don’t cross. Bigotry in any form is one of those lines. As far as the BSA goes, it's not the bigotry of a few radical members. It's enshrined in their nationwide charter. Unfortunately, that smirch sullies the vast, mostly guiltless majority.

If I had a friend that had crossed that line, I would first try to change their viewpoint, but if they held firm to their position, I would terminate the friendship. I treat organizations the same way. I expect my friends I respect to treat me the same way. If I’m bone-headed about something, argue with me about it, for Pete’s sake!

- Pie

[richlevy]

Well, let's look at the NRA.

When then director Wayne LaPierre wrote a fund-raising letter painting all goverment agents as 'jackbooted thugs', former President G.H. Bush resigned in protest.

Some members embraced his comments, and other distanced themselves from them. So, did Mr. LaPierre speak for the entire organization when he placed his comments in a fund-raising letter mailed by the organization?

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's why I never went for the NRA lifetime membership. If they piss me off and I quit (which did happen), it doesn't matter to them. They've already got my money.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

~~snip~~ sassed by xoxoxoBruce.[/url] Hehehe, "brown shirts", I get it. Cute. You should read your own sig. ~~snip~~

I've read it. You'll find out what happens when you abuse that dog if you ever accuse me of being a troll again. :p

[Pie]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Some members embraced his comments, and other distanced themselves from them. So, did Mr. LaPierre speak for the entire organization when he placed his comments in a fund-raising letter mailed by the organization?

If he or the rest of the NRA leadership stood by the comments, then they should all be tarred with the same brush. If they repudiated it, then his comments do not speak for the organization.
What did the leadership of the organization do after the fact? According to a cursory glance at the article, WLaP did make a sort-of apology for his comments.
My personal take on it: way to go, Huge Berserk Rebel Warthog !
- Pie

[lookout123]

have you heard the one about the US Senate voting 98-0 to allow the Boy Scouts to meet on military bases and continue receiving support?

yep, it happened within the past week, but not a lot being said about it. can't even find a story about it right now.